Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Psychology
OPTIONAL Companion
Psychology of Human
Relationships
Contents
Personal Relationships
Part 1A: Formation of Personal Relationships 4
Part 1B: Role of Communication 19
Part 1C: Explanations for Why Relationships Change or End 28
Group Dynamics
Part 2A: Co-operation and Competition 40
Part 2B: Prejudice and Discrimination 44
Part 2C: Origins of Conflict and Conflict Resolution 48
Social Responsibility
Part 3A: By-standerism 54
Part 3B: Prosocial Behaviour 61
Part 3C: Promoting Prosocial Behaviour 75
In this option you will also study the topic of social responsibility: what makes people stand by instead of
helping one another in an emergency; why some people are actively prosocial and assist others,
sometimes at risk or expense to themselves, and how this prosocial behaviour of can be encouraged.
Part 1C: Explanations for Why Relationships Change or End – Why do relationships change or end?
Part 1C(i): Relationship breakdown may follow a pattern
Part 1C(ii): Some relationships may be doomed from the start
Part 1C (iii): Cross-cultural issues in relationship breakdown
Evolutionary theories of attraction are based on the idea that sexual selection and its related behaviours
must be adaptive for it still to be part of human behaviour. The ways in which males and females seek to
attract the opposite sex for reproduction may be explained by looking back to what was deemed essential
Current neurobiological theories use brain-imaging technologies to map out and pinpoint the brain
structures and activity that may be linked to attraction; for example, investigating the reward centre of
the brain and its link to addictive behaviour in relation to attraction. Evolutionary theory is rooted in our
deepest history and is thus very difficult to support with empirical evidence. Neurobiological research
presents us with visual evidence in the form of brain scans that may or may not demonstrate a biological
explanation of attraction – the science is too young to offer any conclusive evidence as yet.
So therefore females will seek mates who appear to be a ‘good investment’, in that they will look after the
woman and her child materially. The woman’s role, in evolutionary terms, is to care for the child and to
produce more children, thereby being unable to contribute to the household wealth. Men, on the other
hand, will look for a woman who has the physical attributes that shout out ‘I am fertile’: a 0.7 waist-to-hip
ratio; clear unlined skin; long glossy hair; full breasts; the look, in short, of youth. It is not difficult to find
examples of such evolutionarily prescribed relationships, particularly in the realms of entertainment, sport
and business.
Method: Over 10,000 participants aged 19-28 from 33 different countries were given a questionnaire
which was either filled in by the participants, or read to them and their answers recorded (in cases of
illiteracy). Information about each participant was obtained on one part of the questionnaire, e.g. age,
religion, relationship status, mate preference, and on the second part of the questionnaire rating scales
were used to indicate how highly certain characteristics, such as chastity, were valued. The participants
were also asked to rank a selection of 13 personality characteristics according to their ideas as to mate
preference.
Results: Overall the findings showed that males tended to value youthful looks (which may signal fertility)
whereas females prized characteristics indicative of resources and wealth. Examples of such findings
include:
97% of the females in the study valued a future partner’s financial stability and prospects more highly
than men did.
100% of the males in the study showed a preference for a younger female partner.
Conclusion: The study supports an evolutionary theory of attraction: males focused on looks, youthfulness
and signals of fertility, whereas women chose signs of wealth and security and had an overall preference
for older mates.
LIMITATIONS: The variety and inconsistency of the sampling methods used means that Buss et al.’s
study is less representative than it may first appear: some samples were obtained via a self-selecting
method; some were systematic, i.e. every fifth household; some were opportunity samples. The age
range of the sample also limits the generalisability of the results as it does not include anyone over the
age of 28. Reliability is also compromised due to the fact that the questionnaire was filled in only once,
with no follow-up to check for consistency. There is also the issue of validity to consider: participants
may have filled in their answers without much thought as to what they were doing; they may have
been untruthful or prone to social desirability bias. Responses made on a questionnaire do not
necessarily reflect how participants behave in real life, as they may say one thing and do the opposite,
making the results of the study low in ecological validity.
Critical Thinking
Are we merely products of evolution? Buss et al. seems to suggest that we are, with its emphasis on the
instinctive drives that produce mating preferences in both males and females. The findings appear to
support the idea that men seek youthful looks and women seek material security in their mates, but
surely there is more to relationships than this study suggests? The continuing existence of homosexual
relationships would seem to refute the idea of anisogamy and evolutionary mate preferences, since the
goal of evolution is reproduction, which is physically impossible (without external assistance) for two
same-sex partners.
The theory also does not explain why some men prefer older women or why some women do not want
children or marriage. These desires defy an evolutionary explanation. Evolutionary explanations of
attraction are on the whole overly deterministic as they rule out the idea that human beings can exercise
choice and free will in their romantic pairings; they also do not account for the idea that people may have
many sexual partners over the years, of varying ages, body shapes and financial means.
Method: 10 females and 7 males who were students at New York State University took part via a self-
selecting sampling method, aged from 18-26 years old (mean age 20). All participants reported being ‘in
love’ (a range of 1-17 months with a mean of 7 months). Participants were placed in an fMRI scanner and
shown a photograph of their loved one followed by a distraction task and then a ‘neutral’ photograph of
an acquaintance with whom they had a non-emotional relationship.
Results: There was activation in the areas of the brain associated with feelings of reward and pleasure –
the dopamine-rich areas including the ventral tegmental area (in the centre of the midbrain) and the
caudate nucleus (again close to the midbrain).
Conclusion: The results suggest that people in the early, intense stages of romantic love access the areas
of the brain most associated with motivation and reward, giving rise to the idea that people become
‘addicted to love’.
LIMITATIONS: The small sample size of 17 participants means that the results are not very meaningful
and may not be robust in terms of statistical analysis. The sample comprised relatively young students
from the same university, which also limits generalisability. Additionally, it is overly reductionist to use
brain scans to determine how romantic love is experienced: there may be a range of other factors
involved, such as similarity, same upbringing, shared ideals, cultural influences. So little is really known
about the brain that there may be other explanations for the activation of the reward centres during
the fMRI scan – perhaps the participants were simply excited to be in a brain scanner for the first time
and this stimulated the dopamine-rich areas. Scanning participants’ brains is clearly an artificial task,
which means that the results are low in ecological validity. Use of fMRI scans is also an expensive way
to collect data, which is possibly why the sample is so small.
Critical Thinking
Is neurobiological research too focused on what and not enough on why? Research by Fisher goes some
way towards explaining what is happening in the brain when someone is in love but it cannot, as yet,
explain why attraction occurs. The use of clinical methods can pinpoint what is happening in terms of fMRI
scans showing activated brain areas but it cannot explain the complexities of attraction. The phrase “What
does she/he see in him/her?” is one which highlights how intensely subjective the process of falling in love
is. One person may rhapsodise about their loved one while their friends stand by, stupefied by the
seemingly unfathomable choice of partner their once-rational buddy has made. It is a phenomenon that
may never be explained, no matter how sophisticated technology becomes.
The matching hypothesis suggests that in making dating and mating choices people will be influenced by
both the desirability of the potential match (what the individual wants) and their perception of
the probability of obtaining the desired person (what an individual thinks they can get). Ultimately, an
individual must make realistic choices if they stand a chance of having their affection reciprocated. Not
many people are willing to risk rejection by pursuing someone who appears to be in another league,
looks-wise: self-esteem is likely to fall if your requests are continually turned down by those with whom
you seek a romantic relationship. In the long run, it is wiser to aim for romantic targets that are well
within reach.
Method: The researchers used the activity logs of an online dating site. They selected 60 heterosexual
male and 60 heterosexual female profiles from the site at random. These 120 participants were identified
as ‘initiators’, meaning that they initiated contact with other users of the site. Records were then kept to
show who responded (‘reciprocating contacts’) and did not respond (‘non-reciprocating contacts’). They
collected a maximum of six of the initiators’ profile photographs as well as the reciprocating and non-
reciprocating profile photographs.
A total of 966 photographs was amassed by the researchers – 527 female and 439 male. The researchers
appointed judges to rate the photos, using their own contacts to do this. The ratings were based on a 7-
point scale of attractiveness (-3 to +3). Each photo was rated by at least 14 and at most 43 judges.
Calculations were based on the mean attractiveness rating given to each initiator, to each of their contacts
and separate attractiveness means for each initiator’s reciprocating and non-reciprocating contacts.
Results: Interestingly, the results do not support the matching hypothesis: the initiator’s physical
attractiveness showed no correlation with the mean physical attractiveness of all the people they
contacted on the site. What the researchers found was that the initiators tended to contact people on the
site who were rated as more attractive than they were.
Conclusion: People do not necessarily apply the matching hypothesis when it comes to dating decisions.
LIMITATIONS: Even though this is a study that did not involve manipulation, it cannot claim to be
completely valid: one online dating site is not a representative sample of a range of dating sites (e.g. it
does not include homosexual dating choices). Additionally, people tend to present themselves in a
somewhat edited way on dating sites: they may make aspirational dating choices or present the best
version of themselves online in a way that is not possible in real-life. Furthermore, the issue of how
the judges rated levels of attractiveness is bound by subjectivity and it cannot be said to be a truly
objective measure that is consistent over time.
Critical Thinking
Are there are too many examples that contradict the matching hypothesis to make it a valid theory?
The foundation of the matching hypothesis is that people tend to opt for partners that reflect their own
level of self-rated attractiveness. To some extent this can be seen to be true. However, there are many
examples where the matching hypothesis is not supported. Evolutionary psychology has pointed out that
old, ugly, rich men seem to attract young, beautiful women due to the idea of anisogamy (see the section
on biological theories above), but there are also examples of same-age couples, neither of whom are rich
or powerful, who seem completely unsuited in terms of their looks. In this way the matching hypothesis
only provides a partial explanation for what attracts one person to another. Plus, the whole concept of
rating one’s own and others’ looks is entirely subjective: someone who rates as a ‘10’ for one person may
Method: 17 male students from a US university were asked to fill in a series of questionnaires asking them
about their attitudes and values. The questionnaires were filled in before the students arrived at the
university and subsequent questionnaires were completed during the course of the first semester. The
variables measured were attraction between the students and attitude changes.
Results: In the first few weeks, attraction was related primarily to proximity (see Festinger’s research in
the next section on sociocultural theories of attraction). As the semester progressed, however, attraction
shifted to those who most closely matched the participants’ attitudes: 58% of participants who had been
paired with a room-mate with similar attitudes had formed friendships compared to 25% with room-
mates who expressed different attitudes.
Conclusion: This research offers some support for the idea that we gravitate towards those who share
similar views to our own.
LIMITATIONS: The small sample size of 17 and the fact that the participants were all male US students
makes the findings difficult to generalise to those outside of this demographic. The use of the
questionnaires means that responses might have been prone to social desirability bias, with
participants possibly wanting to please the researchers (who were, after all, providing them with free
accommodation for a semester), which would invalidate their responses.
Critical Thinking
How might Newcomb’s findings be used in the real world? The results of psychological studies are often
fascinating but without them having a direct application in the real world, some of them may not be very
REFERENCES
Ahmad, S., & Reid, D. W. (2008). Relationship Satisfaction among South Asian Canadians: The Role of
‘Complementary-Equality’ and Listening to Understand. Interpersona, 2(2), pp. 131-150.
Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., Whillans, A. V., Grant, A. M., & Norton, M. I. (2013). Making a difference matters:
Impact unlocks the emotional benefits of prosocial spending. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 88; pp 90–95.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1986). The Informal Rules of Working Relationships. Journal of of
Occupational Behaviour, Vol 7 (4); pp 259-275.
Axelrod, R. (1981). The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists. American Political Science Review, Vol
75 (2); pp 306-318.
Batson, C. D., Bruce, D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., Birch, K. (1981). Is Empathic Emotion a source of
Altruistic Motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 40 (20), pp 290-302.
Batson, C. D.; Batson, J. G.; Griffitt, C. A.; Barrientos, S.; Brandt, J. R.; Sprengelmeyer, P.; Bayly, M. J.
(1989). Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol 56 (6), pp 922-933.
Burnstein, E. and A.V. McRae. 1962. “Some effects of shared threat and prejudice in racially mixed
groups.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 64(4): pp 257–263.
Buss, D. M. (1989) Sex difference in human mate p: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 countries.
Behavioural & Brain Sciences, 12, pp. 1-49.
Cameron, D. (2007). The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women really speak Different Languages?
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark, R.D. & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers. Journal of Psychology
and Human Sexuality, Vol 2 (1), pp 39-55.
Collins, N. L., & Miller, C. (1994). Self-Disclosure and liking: a meta-analytical review. Psychological
Bulletin, 116 (3), pp. 457-475.
D.C. French, C.A. Brownell, W.G. Graziano, WW Hartup (1977). Effects of cooperative, competitive and
individualistic sets on performance in children’s groups. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 24 (1);
pp 1-10.
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8; pp 377-383.
Dickerson, C. A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E. and Miller, D. (1992), Using Cognitive Dissonance to Encourage
Water Conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22: pp. 841–854.
Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex friends: A meta-
analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 104 (2); pp 226-235.
Felmlee, D. (1995). Fatal Attractions: Affection and Disaffection in Intimate Relationships, Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, Vol 12 (2), pp. 295 – 311.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Black, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human
factors in housing Palo Alto, California. Stanford University Press.
Fisher, H., Aron, A. & Brown, L. (2005). Romantic Love: an fMRI Study of a Neural Mechanism for Mate
Choice. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 493 (1), pp 58-62.
Flook L., Goldberg S. B., Pinger, L., Davidson R. J. (2015). Promoting prosocial behavior and self-regulatory
skills in preschool children through a mindfulness-based kindness curriculum. Developmental Psychology
(51), pp. 44–51.
Gupta, U., & Singh, P. (1982). An exploratory study of love and liking and type of marriages. Indian Journal
of Applied Psychology, 19 (2), pp. 92-97.
Lam, V. L., & Seaton, J., (2016). In-group/Out-group Attitudes and Group Evaluations: The Role of
Competition in British Classroom Settings. Child Development Research, vol. 2016, Article ID 8649132, 10
pages.
Latane, B. & Darley, J.M. (1968). Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 10 (3); pp 215-221.
Levine R., Sato S., Hashimoto T., Verma J. (1995). Love and marriage in eleven cultures. Journal of Cross
Cultural Psychology, 26, pp. 554–571.
Levine, R. V., Norenzayan, A., & Philbrick, K. (2001). Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 543-560.Marazziti, D., Akiskal, H. S., Rossi, A., & Cassano, G. B. (1999).
Alterations of the platelet serotonin transporter in romantic love. Psychological Medicine, 29, pp 741-745.
Markey, P. M. & Markey, C. N. (2007). Romantic ideals, romantic obtainment and relationship experience:
The complementarity of interpersonal traits among romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 24 (4), pp. 517-533.
Miller, N. E., & Bugelski, R., (1948). Minor studies in aggression: The influences of frustrations imposed by
the in-group on attitudes toward out-groups. Journal of Psychology, 25, pp. 437-442.
Mitnick, D. M., Heyman, R. E., & Slep, A. M. S. (2009). Changes in relationship satisfaction across the
transition to parenthood: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 23; pp 848–852.
Moreland, R. L., & Beach, S. R. (1992). Exposure effects in the classroom: The development of affinity
among students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 28, pp. 255–276.
Moriarty, T (Feb, 1975) Crime, commitment, and the responsive bystander: Two field experiments. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 31(2), pp. 370-376.
Newcomb, T.M. (1978). The Acquaintance Process: Looking mainly backward. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36 (10), pp.1075-1083.
Parr L.A. (2011). The evolution of face processing in primates. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences. 366 (1571), pp. 1764-1777
Piliavin, I.M., Rodin, J.A. & Piliavin, J. (1969), Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon? Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, (13); pp 289-299.
Shaw Taylor, L., Fiore, A. T., Mendelsohn, G. A., Cheshire, C. (2011). ‘Out of My League’: a real-world test
of the matching hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 37 (7), pp. 942–954.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W., & Sherif, C. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation:
The Robbers’ Cave experiment (Vol. 10). Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Institute of Intergroup
Relations.
Simmons, R.G.; Klein, S.D.; Simmons, R.L. (1977). Gift of Life: The Social and Psychological Impact of Organ
Transplantation. London, UK: Wiley.
Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, USA: Harper Collins.
Tauer, John M., Harackiewicz, Judith M . (2004). The Effects of Cooperation and Competition on Intrinsic
Motivation and Performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 86(6); Jun 2004, pp 849-
861.
Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. (Vol. 136, p. 179). Cambridge, MA: Biological
Laboratories, Harvard University.Whiting, B. B., & Whiting, J. W. (1975). Children of six cultures: A psycho-
cultural analysis. Harvard University Press. 237 pp.
Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Monograph Supplement, 9 (2), pp. 1-27